Judge rips 'overbilling,' slashes legal tab in Marin welfare case

A three-year legal battle waged against Marin County by public interest lawyers on behalf of the poor cost taxpayers a bundle — and would have cost a lot more if the lawyers had their way.

Attorneys said the time they spent fighting Civic Center officials to reform a welfare program was worth at least $2.4 million, sought a fee award of $1.15 million, but ended up with $424,000 following a scorching court decision criticizing them for overbilling.

Although the lawsuit ended in a settlement providing the public with "a significant benefit," Superior Court Judge Paul Haakenson blistered the billing record, concluding "that a vast majority of the hours billed were excessive, duplicative and not reasonably spent."

Judge Haakenson said he found "patterns of excesses and duplication of work" after closely examining more than 2,000 entries in billing records submitted by nine attorneys working on the case for the Public Interest Law Project of Oakland and Bay Area Legal Aid.

"The billing records as a whole evidence substantial duplication and overbilling," Haakenson said. "Particularly where counsel are earning fees as high as $710 an hour, the duplication of efforts, multiple conferences and meetings, and concurrent time spent by numerous attorneys on issues that do not require special expertise, warrant a substantial reduction from the fees sought."

Patti Prunhuber, a senior attorney for the Public Interest Law Project, took issue with the judge's overbilling assertion. "We disagree with that aspect," she said. Efforts to reach other attorneys were fruitless.

"The court ruled that petitioners, and not the county, were the successful parties in this case to reform the county's general assistance program," Prunhuber said. "We're happy our clients and other individuals are facing fewer barriers to receiving much-needed aid," she added. "As a result of this case, 70 percent more people are currently able to access general assistance."

Prunhuber noted the court "acknowledged that these changes would not have occurred without the litigation and that the settlement 'conferred a significant benefit.'" She said that if the settlement occurred sooner, "the county could have avoided the expense of this litigation."

As for the fee award, "petitioners are weighing their options," she said.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit that sought reforms in general assistance, a program that hands out a maximum $387 a month to the poor. The grant is the most generous in the state, and unlike others, provides cash instead of housing or food vouchers. About 480 recipients were enrolled last spring at a cost of about $1.8 million a year.

The lawsuit said the county operated general assistance "according to ad hoc, unpublished, ever-changing, and often unwritten rules that result in the inhumane termination of last-resort aid." Lawyers argued the program failed to guarantee a speedy eligibility process, imposed improper conditions, unfairly sanctioned participants and trampled due process.

A settlement of the contentious case last year enacted reforms including streamlining the application process, eliminating contested eligibility requirements and setting sanction standards.

A survey indicated officials served 68 percent of assistance applicants within three days, but Haakenson rejected county arguments the litigation was frivolous. The judge indicated the case had merit and achieved results, although he observed that "petitioners' success was quite limited in comparison to all of the claims and issues raised and litigated, and in comparison to the relief sought by petitioners."

The settlement agreement with the county capped any fee award at $1.15 million. The public interest lawyers, citing an uncooperative, time-consuming "stonewall" defense by the Marin County Counsel's Office, said the 3,767 hours they spent on the case were worth twice as much as the settlement cap, and thus they should get the maximum allowed. Time spent on the case was calculated after attorneys "exercised considerable billing judgment" by dropping or "unbilling" another 1,094 hours "to address any concerns regarding unnecessary or duplicative, inefficiencies or otherwise arguably non-compensable time," the attorneys said in a court filing.

"Were it not for this cap, a much larger award would be warranted," the lawyers added. "Petitioners therefore request an award of fees in the amount of $1.15 million plus costs" of $23,351.

Haakenson, in awarding fees of $423,574, and costs of $11,675, called the billings "profoundly excessive" and reasoned that in most cases, the lawyers were entitled to only 15 to 20 percent of the hours they claimed. His decision, for example, cut the 1,711 hours billed by Judith Gold, a $710-an-hour attorney for the law project, to just 257 hours, reducing her bill from about $1.2 million to about $182,000.

"The vast majority of time was billed by the higher rate attorneys, while much of the work could have been performed by less costly counsel," Haakenson's decision said. "While the case indeed was a complex one in some respects, the majority of the thousands of hours billed were billed for work on issues lacking that complexity."

Four attorneys involved in the initial drafting of a discovery motion submitted bills totaling more than a "staggering" $45,000, the judge noted. He cited "double, triple or quadruple billed conferences," and found a routine case management statement generated bills for "excessive hours by three attorneys billing for $710, $710 and $630 per hour." He said that "on some occasions, four attorneys consulted together, each billing," and that one attorney billed at $630 per hour "for tasks such as calling Michigan to find local counsel, arranging travel ... and other ministerial tasks." Other attorney bills seemed odd, he added, including a bill for time spent waiting in line with welfare applicants or time apparently spent with a trial strategy consulting firm.

Further, the judge indicated lawyers wasted time with convoluted pleadings requiring submission of new legal briefs. "Time not reasonably spent" included oral arguments that the judge found "highly excessive."

County officials were pleased with the ruling, issuing a press release that called the welfare program "one of the best in the state" and trumpeted reduction of the taxpayer legal tab to $424,000. "We're pleased with the judge's expert analysis," said Heather Ravani, assistant health director who oversees the general assistance program.

"We believe no fees should have been awarded, but we accept the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the judge," said Stephen Rabb, the deputy county counsel who handled the case. He called the Public Interest Law Project a "nonprofit solely funded by attorney fee awards."

Supervisor Kate Sears, a former top state prosecuting attorney who serves as president of the county board, said the case raises questions about the legal business. "Sending multiple attorneys to meetings or court hearings that could be properly handled by one lawyer is no way to practice law," Sears said. "Seeking taxpayer dollars to pay the bill for hours unnecessarily spent by attorneys is no way to serve the public interest."

The three welfare clients who were plaintiffs in the case, Greg Versis, Alfredo Garcia and Lee Artrice, received settlements. Versis got $5,150, and the others, $4,644 each.